Recently I wrote an article about women's tendency to support statist candidates. As my emails attest, it was met with quite a positive response. Yet, not surprisingly, there was also a very predictable one: complaints about generalizations. For instance, one respondent wrote that she was tired of the "all men are this and all women are that" tripe.

Of course, people only complain about generalizations when they hear one they don't like and, perhaps, are unable to refute. But you can rest assured that they generalize just like anyone else; in fact, generalizations are woven so seamlessly into our thinking and discourse that we often utter them unthinkingly as a matter of course. Just consider how often people say things such as "Why do men never ask directions?!" or "It drives me crazy when guys flip from one TV channel to another rapid-fire!" But do all men do these things? I always ask directions and hate the habit of using a remote control like a musical keyboard. Nevertheless, I'll be the first to admit that those generalizations are clearly valid.

The problem with blanket condemnations of generalizations is that they shut down debate. They are, in a way, akin to responding to someone who substantively criticizes Barack Obama or rap artists by accusing him of being a "racist." It doesn't address the particulars of the criticism, which may or may not be correct; it avoids them with the implication that, in principle, criticizing a black person is wrong because it reflects prejudice. Likewise, to respond to a group analysis by condemning generalization in principle allows one to avoid having to address it in the particular. Note that while this can be a very conscious ploy, it often isn't. Sometimes it's just an emotional reaction to an unpleasant truth and reflects

The human mind tends to organize the world around them into groupings to simplify processing the world around us. While generalizations often do miss individual differences they are a useful survival tool. To go with the premise that tigers eat people is a safe generalization, even though that particular tiger might not be hungry.

Yeah, it’s the argumentum ad argumentum! You too can be Socrates, attack your opponent’s logic. Start with the generalization and don’t stop (argumentum ad nauseam) until he admits we can never know anything. Then after you’ve rendered him into a Harry Krishnut, attack his punctuation and spelling (argumentum ad apostrophe’um).
Go git em! (Argumentum ad sic ‘um.)

"It drives me crazy when guys flip from one TV channel to another rapid-fire!"

That was explained 14 years ago by a Ladies Home Journal executive editor who gave a talk carried by C-SPAN2 one afternoon.

She took questions after her address, and a young woman of the Serious GenderFem Persuasion rose and asked her, locating her concern in the executive editor's comments, "Why do you think there isn't more women's programming on commercial television?"

The executive editor, stunned, groped for a second, and then asked her questioner if she'd been paying attention -- something along the lines of "what planet do you live on? -- It's all about women on TV. Why do you think men channel-surf? There's nothing on that remotely engages their interests outside the tiny ghetto of sports programming." </paraphrase>

Her expanded argument was that content was determined by advertisers, and women determine what advertisers want to emphasize, to attract "eyeballs". Men are not in the picture, usually, because women make almost all the family purchases.

Including cars. At this point, you many insert your favorite "she chose" story here -- my favorite is the guy (personal acquaintance) who warned his wife, when she went to look at the Mitsu Montero he'd test-driven, not to fall for the salesman's trick of getting her to drive it home, which often turns a casual interest into a lead-pipe cinch sale with women. She ignored her husband, brought the Montero home, and boom, she made the decision for them both without taking his reservations into account. Very common tale, unfortunately -- and a good argument for why men should, as they did in the 17th century, legally own their wives.

a good argument for why men should, as they did in the 17th century, legally own their wives.

I wonder which country you're talking about.

It certainly can't be England or the English colonies where common law was in effect.

Under common law, and most European countries had similar effects, married women had very few rights, but not because they were owned by their husbands. The legal theory was that the two were literally "one flesh," with all legal action of the unit taken by the husband. Thus the married woman did not exist legally as an individual. This was called the "female covert."

This continued as the legal doctrine pretty much throughout the 18th and into the 19th century. Changes over this period in the actual status of women were considerable, but were mainly social rather than legal.

Significant formal changes in the legal status of women did not occur until well into the 19th century.

OTOH, in the Old Testament wives were usually spoken of as being owned by their husbands.

You have the saying wrong. It’s “The exception proves the rule.” This means that the existence of an exception proves that there was a rule in the first place. If there were no rule, you could not — and wouldn’t even think to — speak of an “exception.”

Anyway, no one is putting you in a box any more than anyone else. We’re all categorized in certain ways (eg, “Men don’t like asking for directions,” etc.)

Feminism is one of the root causes of all modern social ills. Feminism includes a lot of stuff people don’t realize. Including the right to vote. I wouldn’t take it back now, but I would set restrictions of voting - reading comprehension perhaps; tax paying perhaps, vetting carefully as to citizenship for sure, no felons. Would have to think more seriously about it.

20
posted on 10/02/2011 8:17:58 AM PDT
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)

Sorry, but you’re mistaken. Holmes might have said what you cite, but that isn’t the famous saying that would be referenced in these situations. Look it up if you don’t believe me; it’s well-known.

As for what Holmes might have said, it isn’t really relevant. You can find a source for anything, but it doesn’t cut any ice to reference something obscure simply because it contradicts a well-known truth.

I never disputed that he did. And of course you agree with him. It’s what you want to believe. The difference is, however, that I provided you with logical reasoning. When you call something an “exception,” you’re acknowledging that there is a rule.

Anyway, be careful. You’re coming very close to conforming to a stereotype.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.